I suspect bull poop

[Jayneflakes]

This was sent my way via the joy of Friend-Face and I was told that it is true, however I am dubious of such things and thought that I would throw it open to you lot who love a good chat/moan/debate/fight.

So what do you think, has the man cow done a big splatty one and these people are picking through it searching for hope where none exists?

Originally Posted by Random Friend-Face-Ache-Book person

Speed Camera Loophole Exposed

Extract from The Western Mail
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrates' courts could grind to a halt if thousands of motorists exploit a legal loophole unwittingly exposed by a Welsh driver.

Magistrates had no choice but to find Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, Flintshire, not guilty of speeding when his case was heard on Thursday.

He had omitted to sign the standard form which is sent to the owner of each vehicle caught by a speed camera - and Mold magistrates said they couldn't accept the form as evidence.

Police have no power to compel car owners to sign the form and have been expecting someone to spot the loophole.

Yesterday the Association of British Drivers, representing about 2,500 motorists, predicted drivers would soon get wind of the court case.

"Motorists are always very quick to seek any way to avoid paying for their speeding ticket, particularly when they've been caught by cameras because they resent very much the way the cameras operate," said spokesman Tony Vickers.

"The cameras have very much reduced public respect for the police and local authorities.

"People are only too glad to find a way to beat the system."

He said motorists who receive a speeding ticket after being caught on camera could opt to have their case heard in court, rather than pay the fine without quibble.

"If a lot of people take up this option it will have another side-effect, which will be to clog up the magistrates' courts with hundreds or thousands of motorists all trying to avoid paying the fine.

"The implications for the legal system are interesting, to say the least."

Although the ABD did not condone breaking the highway laws, it said it would place details of the loophole on its own website for other drivers to read.

"I'm sure a lot of people will try it on and see whether it gets them anywhere."

The prospect of using the loophole could look especially appealing to people who already had endorsements on their licences, said Mr Vickers.

"They should bear in mind that if they fail, they will end up paying the full fine rather than the 50% they would pay if they put their hand up."

When a police camera takes a photograph of a speeding vehicle, the vehicle's registered owner is sent a form asking who the driver was at the time.

It is an offence not to complete the form and name the driver - but the owner does not have to sign it.

If the form has not been signed, the courts cannot take any notice of it.

Magistrates in Mold were asked to prove a case of speeding against Phillip Dennis, 34, of Gwibnant Farm, Downing Road, Whitford, near Holywell.

But clerk Paul Conlon pointed out that the form naming the defendant as the driver was unsigned.

The driver had provided the information required of him but there was no requirement under that section of the law for the form to be signed.

Magistrates said they were not happy but had to find the defendant not guilty in his absence.

Chairman John Beard suggested the police should go back to defendants and ask them to sign the form.

But he was advised that as the law now stood the only requirement was to stipulate the name of the driver, and that there was no legal requirement to sign it even if police did go back and request a signature.

Nobody was available from North Wales Police to comment yesterday.

But one police source said there had been concern that once the loophole was spotted "it could open the flood gates."

He said, "The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal against a conviction on this point but no one has yet.

"We have basically been keeping our heads down.

"Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into something they do not have to do.

"The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms back unsigned."

RoadPeace, the charity for road-accident victims, said the loophole showed that cameras and computers were no substitute for a police presence on the roads.

Chairman Zoë Stow said, "It illustrates that we can't just deal with these things as a bureaucratic issue and send forms through the post.

"It's disappointing that the law is poorly drafted and nobody seems to care enough to do it properly."

Speed cameras have proliferated in South and North Wales since the Home Office gave police permission to use fines to pay for enforcement, rather than sending the money to the Treasury.

Latest figures show that in 2001 the number of speeding tickets issued by South Wales Police was 38% higher than in 2000.

North Wales Police registered a 19% increase in 2001, although its Arrive Alive speed-camera campaign wasn't launched until late that year.

TLDR = not signing form means you get away with it?

[Red Herring]

I think you will find that happened back in 2003. Things have moved on a bit since then.

Originally Posted by Red Herring

I think you will find that happened back in 2003. Things have moved on a bit since then.

In what way ?

[Jayneflakes]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

I think you will find that happened back in 2003. Things have moved on a bit since then.

I suspected that this may be the case. Are you able to clarify?

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Specialone

In what way ?

Here you go, as I'm the only one on here who seems to know how to look things up!

Do I have to sign the Notice of Intended Prosecution?
Many people have returned their NIP forms without signature and have tried to argue (through their barrister) that without the signature it cannot follow that the individual can be prosecuted. This is not the case however. If you fail to sign the NIP then in essence you are in breach of the Act by failing to supply the name of the driver of the vehicle and can be prosecuted for this offence.
In all instances, we would avise 'Yes' to signing of the NIP. We say this in light of the many cases that have gone before the courts - see the case of Idris Francis (March 2004) below:
Mr Francis, a retired company director, was caught speeding on 11 March, 2003, on the A325 in Hampshire, by a speed camera. When the case came to court, magistrates could not convict him of speeding, as he had not signed the form identifying himself as the driver - rendering it inadmissible in court. Instead the vintage car owner, of West Meon, near Winchester, was fined £60 with £364 costs and given three penalty points on his licence for failing to identify the driver.


By the way technically it's not the NIP that you are being asked to sign, that is a document simply telling you as the registered keeper that a prosecution is pending against the driver of that vehicle. It is the request issued under Sect. 172 that requires you to provide details of the driver at the specified time that you are not signing. My personal view is that not signing it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as you have technically supplied the information and all they then do is send the fixed penalty ticket to either you or the named driver. If it's paid then job done, if not then summons the named driver for the offence and if that isn't the registered keeper then summons them as well and they can explain to the magistrates who the driver was, or refuse to and get done for contempt of court. I think the courts can't be bothered to go to all that trouble and just summons those that don't sign for failing to comply, and until someone appeals that then they will continue to do so.

[Luckypants]

Hi Red, I saw that but didn't have a chance to research. Was that just a Google for 'Do I have to sign a NIP'?

[Red Herring]

Pretty much, although I admit I did have a rough idea of what I was looking for.

The problem with the "remote enforcement" approach is that it pretty much relies upon a certain amount of honesty and co-operation on the part of the alleged offender, and as a result a significant proportion of the persons caught by it are reasonable and otherwise law abiding citizens, and a significant number of the people who evade prosecution are the complete opposite. This leads to a sense of unfairness and as a result a perception of persecution and unreasonable treatment. People are therefore very motivated to find all kind of "legal" dodges, however the bottom line is unless you are prepared to be dishonest you can't get off, and unless you live a life based on dishonesty it's quite hard to get away with it, as quite a few people have found out....... Trust me, I know this system inside out and I still had to cough up!